LANDMARK CASES T - V Flashcards
Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California (CA SC 1976) FOTC
- Poddar dated Tarasoff, didn’t know American norms, betrayed by relationships with other men
- Depression, went to student MH, revealed intention to get a gun and shoot and then unilaterally terminated tx
- Psychologist sent letter to police warning them, police interviewed Poddar and released on promise that he would stay away from Tarasoff
- Poddar moved in w/ Tarasoff’s brother. When she returned, Poddar stabbed her to death
- Parents sued police, student MH, and Regents UC for failure to warn
Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California (CA SC 1976) Court History
- Trial court dismissed no cause of action (therapist had duty to patient but not 3rd party)
- COA supported dismissal
- Appealed CA SC, who reversed. Therapist has duty to use reasonable care to give threatened persons warnings as are essential to avoid foreseeable danger (Tarasoff I)
- Uproar among psychiatrists/police, so CA SC decided to rehear case (Tarasoff), case in question
Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California (CA SC 1976) H
H: When therapist determines/should determine that serious danger of violence to another, incurs obligation to use reasonable care to protect intended victim, may require various steps - warn victim, notify police, or take whatever steps reasonably necessary
Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California (CA SC 1976) R (Similar Medical, Violence Prediction, Negligence, General Idea, and Balancing Risks)
- Referenced precedent that doctors have been held liable for negligent failure to dx/warn of contagious disease
- Defendants argued unable to accurately predict violence: court said didn’t have to perfect, but exercise reasonable degree of skill/care ordinarily possessed by members of profession
- Proof, aided by hindsight, insufficient to establish negligence
- Ultimate issue one of social policy, not professional expertise
- Risk of unnecessary warnings is outweighed by benefit of possible lives saved
Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California (CA SC 1976) Famous Quote
“Protective privilege ends where public peril begins.”
Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California (CA SC 1976) Dissent
May increase violence bc pts might not seek tx and psychiatrists may overcommit to avoid liability
Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California (CA SC 1976) State Alignments (2)
- Vast majority of state SCs that have addressed the issue have concurred w/ Tarasoff
- Many states have passed Tarasoff limiting statutes which usually require explicit threat, and duty is discharged if any number of things, such as notifying intended victim or LEO
Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California (CA SC 1976) Ultimate Result
- Settled out of court for significant $$$
- Served 4 years manslaughter, ultimately overturned w/ faulty instructions
- 2nd trial not held on promise that would return, which he did and married there
Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California (CA SC 1976) Effect on Psychotherapy
Predictions about drastic alterations to psychotherapy never really resulted; therapists were breaching confidentiality to protect foreseeable victims before decision
United States v. Comstock (SCOTUS 2010) FOTC
- Comstock served sentence CP
- Just prior to release, found CACE as “sexually dangerous person” under 18 USC 4248, allowed for civil commitment afterwards
- He and 4 others challenged, $4248, saying violated 6th/8th/10th As, as well as D.P., double jeopardy, Ex Post Facto, and Necessary & Proper Clause (allows Congress to make laws req’d for exercise of other powers)
United States v. Comstock (SCOTUS 2010) Court History and Issue
- Distr Co granted def’s dismissal saying statute should’ve required BARD and Congress exceeded legislative powers
- COA affirmed, but only on Congress exceeding powers under Necessary and Proper Clause (didn’t decide SOP Q or any other challenges
- SCOTUS granted cert limited to question of Congress’ authority under N & P
ISSUE: Does the N & P Clause allow Congress to create legislation permitting civ commitment of sex offenders after completion of sentence?
United States v. Comstock (SCOTUS 2010) H & R (5 Clause, Prev Statute, Custodial, 10th A, Scope)
H: Reversed and remanded. N & P Clause grants Congress sufficient authority for $4248. Didn’t opine on any other constitutional challenges
R:
1) Clause grants Congress broad authority to pass laws
2) Congress has already authorized civ commitment of fed prisoners with MI who are dangerous, $4248 is “modest addition”
3) Fed Gov’t, as custodian to prisoners, has power to protect community from potentially dangerous prisoners
4) 10th A does not limit the authority to states here
5) $4248 is narrow & doesn’t confer Congress general police power, which would be reserved to states
United States v. Comstock (SCOTUS 2010) Dissent
$4248 didn’t execute an existing “enumerated power,” and the statute didn’t explicitly connect “SDP” to either subject’s crime or likelihood of violating laws in future
United States v. Georgia (SCOTUS 2006) FOTC
- Goodman, paraplegic inmate, filed c/o GA DOC challenging conditions of confinement, basically cell not enough room to move around, no help self care/hygiene etc, and denied physical therapy/tx
- Claims under $1983 and ADA T II, injunctive relief & damages
United States v. Georgia (SCOTUS 2006) Court History & Issue
- Claims under $1983 and ADA T II, injunctive relief & damages
- Distr Co dismissed
- COA said erred in dismissing $1983 claims, as there were 3 8th A claims
- Affirmed that Title II ADA claims barred by sovereign immunity
- SCOTUS granted Goodman’s petition to decide whether T II ADA abrogates state sovereign immunity
- US DOJ intervened on his behalf to defend constitutionality ADA
Issue: Can disabled inmate sue State for money damages under T II ADA?
